IS NOT about overturning the Referendum. It is as it is, just as Breakfast is Breakfast. Everyone has to “get over it and move on”, as we are frequently told. This is us doing just that;

IS NOT about subversive activity. We are not “flying below the radar” in terms of what we are doing and how we are doing it. On the contrary, it is part of our policy to be completely open about what is going on, to the extent that we successfully applied to the Court to overturn the Government’s attempt to keep its defence secret. We are committed to openness, and we will always be “public” unless legally forbidden to be so;

IS NOT about asking the Courts to decide whether/when the UK should leave the EU (this actually has been suggested, and by the Government, no less);

IS NOT about dredging up a “democracy” argument after the referendum because the result didn’t suit. The use of Royal Prerogative was not, I believe, discussed before the referendum. (After all, lots of people, including the Quitters, thought Remain would carry the day.) In that case, the question of democracy did not arise until after the referendum. Now, however, it has arguably become the most important issue surrounding the Government’s current stance;

IS NOT about preferring to be “ruled by Brussels” – please see both above and below. This also has been suggested;

IS NOT about being a bunch of traitors to our country because we think that the 37% of eligible voters (who expressed a “leave” preference on referendum day) need endorsement by Parliament. Particularly as it is a 37% vote in what, as Mr Kenneth Clarke has pointed out, is in real terms an opinion poll.

In our view, it’s not sufficient reason for taking this apparently irrevocable step “on the nod”. Every MP is sworn to make decisions in the best interests of the UK, with special responsibility to his/her constituency. We need this level of commitment and accountability at such a turning point in the UK’s history.

IS about defending the democratic right of all UK citizens (whether or not they are worried about it) not to have rights granted to them by Parliament removed from them by an archaic mechanism which bypasses Parliament;

IS about genuine commitment to the Quitters’ “take back control” and “it’s a question of sovereignty” soundbites. Control should be exercised by our democratically-elected Parliament, not by an unelected Prime Minister acting independently, and, furthermore, excluding Parliament for a reason I haven’t yet heard explained in any sensibly-argued or defensible way. Sovereignty is about Parliament too: it’s not called “our Sovereign Parliament” for nothing.

How can this decision be made “before the fact” when we (still) don’t know what it would mean for the UK nations and their citizens?

“Yes, I’ll buy it. I don’t know what it is, how much it costs, how long it will it take to be delivered and how long it can go on working. Oh, and what’s the guarantee? All I know at the moment is that if I don’t like it I can’t return it”.